Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries a 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On June 25, 2022, at 7:55 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 25, 2022, the Complainant was operating a vehicle erratically around Wasaga Beach. The Complainant’s vehicle [now known to be a black Honda] was involved in three motor vehicle collisions, at which he failed to remain. The Complainant’s Honda was intercepted by police officers, after which, following a short pursuit, he collided with a vehicle driven by a civilian. The civilian driver did not suffer a serious injury. The police officers had deployed a spike-belt, but the Complainant drove around it prior to the final collision. The Complainant ran from his vehicle and was subsequently arrested. He was taken to the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital after he complained of pain, and was suspected of having sustained a fractured hip. The scene was not held.

At 8:32 p.m., the OPP contacted the SIU and confirmed that the Complainant’s injuries included a fractured pelvis, fractured hip, and internal bleeding. He was to be transported St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) in Toronto.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 06/25/2022 at 8:49 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/25/2022 at 9:41 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The scene was located on the south side of Mosley Street in the area of 1724 Mosley Street, Wasaga Beach.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Communications audio and scene photographs were obtained from the OPP.

The OPP also provided the SIU two surveillance videos from the Town of Wasaga Beach from street cameras at the intersection of Mosley Street and River Road.

CW #1 had a dash-cam, which recorded the collision. As the video would have been overwritten, an officer recorded the video with his cellular telephone. That recording was subsequently provided to the SIU.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and civilians who witnessed the incident in parts, as well as video footage that captured some of the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU or to authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of June 25, 2022, the Complainant was operating a Honda Accord in Wasaga Beach when he rear-ended another vehicle in the area of the Main Street bridge between River Road East and Mosley Street. Deciding he would flee the scene of the collision, the Complainant accelerated westbound on Mosley Street and soon came across a police cruiser. Concerned the police cruiser was after him, the Complainant continued at speed westward on the roadway.

Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Wasaga Beach on June 25, 2022. As he was fleeing from police at the time of the incident, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The lead officer in pursuit – the SO – was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision and the pursuit that preceded it.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The evidence establishes that the SO was well back, at least 30 seconds back, of the Complainant when the final collision occurred. In the circumstances, other than being the initial impetus for the Complainant’s flight on Mosley Street, there is no suggestion that the SO caused or contributed to the collision in any manner that could attract criminal sanction. The Complainant had ample opportunity to desist from his reckless course and chose not to. The responsibility for that decision lies solely with him.

The issue turns to whether the SO, as part of the context within which the collision occurred, drove dangerously in his own right. There are certainly aspects of the officer’s conduct that attract legitimate scrutiny - his speed, for one. The GPS data from his cruiser indicates that the officer drove in excess of the speed limit for much of the pursuit. While some of that was to be expected if the officer was going to catch up and attempt to stop the speeding Honda, the officer was bound at all times to govern his speed in the interests of public safety. With this balancing act in mind, one asks whether it was going too far when the officer reached speeds well above 100 km/h, at one point clocking 136 km/h. The evidence further suggests that the SO did not inform the communications centre that he was in pursuit or broadcast his speeds and other conditions, which he was bound to do by way of police policy. That requirement is in place to allow dispassionate, senior police personnel the opportunity of making informed decisions with respect to the continuation of a pursuit.

That being said, I am satisfied that the SO’s indiscretions, if they be such, did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. For starters, I am satisfied that the officer was within his rights in deciding to initiate a pursuit. Shortly after the Honda passed him on Mosley Street, he would have received word via radio that a vehicle – likely, the Honda – had just been involved in a collision at which he had failed to remain – a potential criminal offence. The officer’s speeds, though at times very high, would not appear to have directly imperiled third-party traffic; there was no evidence, for example, of other motorists having had to take evasive action to avoid the officer’s cruiser. In fact, just the opposite, the evidence indicates that the SO, whatever his speed was, came to stop at a red light at Sunnidale Road North before resuming pursuit of the Honda. The evidence also indicates that the SO had his emergency lights on for most if not the entirety of the pursuit, giving traffic around him notice of the pursuit and his speeds. Lastly, and to reiterate, the SO was never so close to the Honda as there to be any suggestion that he unduly pushed the Complainant in any way. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s driving amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO.


Date: October 21, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit